At the same time, experiences of some countries facing similar challenges show the nececcity of pursuing a comprehensive policy on stabilization of the staff structure and brain drain prevention, and such a policy should be based on openness, rather than restrictions. Interestingly, there are both success stories in this respect and failures, and the latter occur whenever there is no such policy in place. For instance, China, currently one of the biggest donors of research staff for the US science and technology sector has now been very successful in promoting a ‘repatriation’ program by means of the following mechanisms: high wages, especially for those holding Doctor degrees, an accelerated establishment of experimental bases and laboratories in the best national research centers, encouragement of high-tech enterprises, support of emergence of the innovational infrastructure (innovational and incubator centers), and incentives for development of research structures from aborad. They enjoy land tax benefits and can import research equipment free from customs duties. As a result, now China has become home for over 200 transnational corporations’ research centers, and the country sees a considerable inflow of researchers who once left abroad.
Another example is Canada, whose research institutions were facing growing pressures because of the bran drain to the US. To return national researchers and prevent a nw wave of brain drain, in 1997 the government established the Canadian Innovation Fund, one of whose main tasks became support to the creation of research infrastructure, including renewal of the experimental base. The idea was that having got a chance to work on a new equipment, researchers would favor th idea to stay in the country. At the ame time, funding was based on co-financing principles, with the Fund contributing with 40%, local budgets and the industrial sector together with 60% of the overall budget. In addition, in 2000 the government initiated Mery po sokhraneniyu kadrovogo potentsiala nauchno-tekhnicheskogo komplexa. Kontseptsia. proekt. Sovet pri Presidente RF po nauke i vysokim yekhnologiyam. Moscow, April 2000.
the program of support to high research positions in the frame of hich until 2005 the gornment will be funding 2,000 such posiions in the Canadian institutions and universities. All the above should help get back earlier left researchers.
So, the correction of the sittuation with research staff in both countries is made both by means of higher salariei and creation of the respective infrastructure.
There also is an opposite example, namely, France. The country also suffers a mass brain drain, whose major reasons are relatively low salaries and innumerous bureaucratic constraints in the scientific sector.
More specifically, researchers employed in the public sector enjoy tthe status of civil servants, while in universities science and edication often appear split, which makes the French and Russian systems o organization of science very similar. In France, there is anotable stagnation in the area of funding research:
for several years government expenditure on science remain unchanged and amounted to 2.1% of GDPThere is an ongoing debate on the public sector reform and some steps were made (for instance, establishment of joint university research laboratories and the National Research Center (CNRS), which was established yet in 1939 following the Soviet Academy of Science model and is a recepient of one-fourth of all the allocations for research14), but they are fragmentary ones.
At the same time since 1996 Russia has implemented a federal targeted program which since 2002 is known as ‘Integration of Research and the Higher Education in Russia for the Period between 2002-2006’.
The program focuses both on supporting young researchers through the integration of academic insitutions and universities’ research and educational activities an contributes to optimization of the institutional structure of science and a ‘smooth’ reform of its public sector. In 2003 the program was funded at the level of the prior year, i.e. its actual funding diminished. In addition, because of constraints imposed by the Budget Code, it becomes impossible to extend support to integration structures themsrlves, the majority of which are not legal entitis, while they form fundamental elements of the modern organization of science. The same problem faces public research funds, which results in their awarding grants to institutions as a whole, rather then winner teams. One of the areas he program embraced also provided support to renewal of research and educational centers’ device base, however, that particular activity as not promoted due to lack of funds. The Program also suffers certain drawbacks: an excessive and growing from year to year number of participants (s of today, hose are 247 public universities, 320 research centers under the Russian Academy of Sciences, and 168 secoral public research centers), lack of strict criteria for support, and complex reporting procedures.
But its concept remain up-to-date, and should its deficiencies be eliminated, in couple with a rise in governmental allocations on its implementation, the Program could become instrumental for th systemic solution of th staff problem in science, while there ould be no need in introducing another federal targeted program.
Overall, the renewal of the staff balance in the national silence will be happening simultaneously with the improvement of the material base of research, development of the industrial sector in science, and restructuring of the research center network.
That is why the government should view among its priorities the support to establishment and renewal of the research infrastructure and encouragement of ties between research and industry. As a first step, one need to substantially raise financing under the program ‘Development of the device ase of research organizations and the higher schools’ by adjusting it to the current scope and rate of aging of the research equipment, so that its share would account for at least 10% of the whol budget for science. Under this particular program the allocation of funds should be based upon tender procedures and linked to the implementation of targeted programs. The other possible mechanism is funding centers of collective usage of equipment through the Russian Fund of Fundamental Research (RFFR).
The device base of the national science could also b renewed by purchasing equipment (with the length of service up to 3 years) on the secondary market. But there is a hole range of factors associated with the imperefection of the customs law that block the use of this particular channel: the problem is research equipment is not singled out in the customs classification of goods, that is why it is classified arbitrarily and there are no standart customs procedures. Furthermore, as the majority of research devices are unique, every OECD Science, Technology, and Industry Outlook- 002. OECD, 2003, p.R. Lallement, S. Paillard. The Position of France in the Knowledge-Based Economy: an Assessment. Pper presented at the international onference ‘innovation in Europe: Dynamics, Institutions, and Values”. Rockslide University, Denmark, May 8-9, time it should be certified, which appears labor- intensive and substantiallyslows down their shipment across Russian borders.
On the other hand, the national research instrument-making sector has always been quite advanced, and it continues to develop thatnsk to small innovation firms. In light if this, it would be expedient to extend the governmental support to smallmanufacturers selling their produce to Russian research centers and higher schools. In the first half 2003 there appeared the first precedent of using such a scheme: the Fund for Support of Development of Small Forms of Businsses in the Scientific and Technical Sphere signed an agreement with the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, according to which small businesses supported by the Fund wuld produce research equipment for institutions of SB RAS. It is stipulated in the areement that the Fund provides 50% of funding, while SB RAS-40%, and research centers’s funds would form the remaining 10% of funding.
The staff situation can also be partly resolved, if the government creates conditions to encourage an inflow of research staff form other countries and primarily from the CIS states. But there is no government policy in this particular area, despite President Putin in his 2003 Address to the Federal Assembly emphasized the importance of shaping an efficient immigration policy, especially with respect to the CIS countries.
There also is a growing need in the development of a program to attract talented young an qualified staff from the CIS countries, which would include, among others, such components as an introduction of special, ‘green-light’ procedures to ensure work permits for research staff. To prevent abuses in this are, it would be expedient to introduce a core-based system of assessment of potential immigrants’ capacities in the given research area with account of other countries’ respective success records. The following elements can form criteria for such an assessment: the MA degree for young researchers and work record and degree for lder ones, the level of command in Russian, and an invitation of from a concrete Russian organization or a university. In addition, the government needs to develop the list of research areas for which the country needs qualified researchers and which can hardly be met at the expense of domestic reserves. This would allow an introduction of a flexible and more neatly built system of immigrant selection criteria. In addition to the above, while pursuing the policy of attraction of youngsters to research, one should also introduce age restrictions. As well, there should be provided an opportunity to receive the RF citiznship for those immigrants from the CIS countries who have successfully worked during a certain period of time (5 and more years) in the national research sector.
The country has alredy witnessed success stories of integration of reseachers from the CIS countries into Russian institutions and universities. For instance, an inflow of Middle-Asian Russian-speaking researchers provided an impetus to the development of humanitarian sciences in Great Novgorod and Severodvinsk, while biological scinece in Omsk also benefited greatly from the same exodus. It should be noted that local universities helped the newcomers with appartments there. Such an experience showed that the inflow of qualified resarch staff both contributes to progress in science and has a positive effect on the social environment in small cities.
As concerns Russian staff leaving the country, there must not be any prohibitive or restrictive measures,- on the contrary, Russian resarch community should develop cooperation programs with our compatriots abroad (joint research, invitations to visit Russia and delier seminars here, joint innovation projects together with small businesses).
I. Dezhina The YUKOS case: an attempt of interpretation.
The papers suggests the most acceptable, from the author’s point of view, interpretation of the events around YUKOS/Menatep happened in July 2003. Though paradoxically, but the author believes that the main cause of the pressure on the group appears a notably grown level of legal protection (legalization) of the company’s assets and its owners’ possible strategic vision of its future.
The YUKOS/Menatep case was likely to form the most notable case in Russia in July 2003. Several formally separate cases simultaneously imitated by the Attorney General’s office both gave rise to numerous versions and speculations and, as it often happens, left genuine motives of the situation aside of the general public’s notice. At the same time, none of the versions highlighted by mass media (with a natural absence of official ones) appear satisfactory.
Purely political interpretations associated with the start of the pre-election struggle, conflicting groups in the presidential Administration and their financial sources (the remains of ‘the Family’ and YUKOS-Sibneft, the St. Petersburg representatives of enforcement agencies-Rosneft), Mr. Khodorkovsky’s political ambitions, etc. are unlikely to provide a satisfactory explanation, though they could well form an additional impulse to a solution by means of enforcement. Nevertheless, the political component of the situation is indirectly proved by the typical fact tat authors of even relatively minor political intrigues do not often seriously consider global economic consequences for the country as a whole.
It is equally hard to consider purely economic, property redistribution, motivations. The existing legal instruments are not sufficient to ensure a non-market takeover of share in YUKOS15. As far as withdrawal of disputable stock packages in other companies (such as the de-privatization of 20% of OAO Apatit or the assignment of a 19% stake in Eniseyneftegas to Rosneft) is concerned, the forces involved are too great, while judicial prospects (providing impartiality of the court of law) are too loose.
In all likelihood, the context of this particular case appears ore fundamental. There have recently appeared an increasing number of research addressing the problem of a rising demand for independent institutions in Russia16. More specifically, such papers note a rise since 2002 in the interest in the economic institutions that are not associated with a certain social group, i.e. those that are designated to ensure protection of all economic agents (the universal support of the idea of the state machinery reform, the idea of independence of the court of law, etc.) Clearly, such an interest does not rise by itself. According to available estimates, at a certain stage, the biggest Russian corporations’ costs of interaction with the domestic bureaucracy (in the framework of a protective mechanism built in the 1990s, which is based on utilizing the ‘administrative resources’, i.e. ‘connections’ with federal and regional civil servants and courts of law, financing politicians, among others) have proved to be too high, which called for a revision of the protective mechanism system17.